SARWAN RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of FIR No. 126 dated 13.8.2002 registered under Sections 498-A/354 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code in Police Station Majitha, district Amritsar and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) THE facts required to be noticed for disposal of the petition are that petitioner Sarwan Ram is aged about 70 years. He retired from Army in the year 1983 and is getting pension. Thereafter, he was employed in Air force from where he retired at the age of 60 years. Mohinder Kaur, petitioner No. 2, is the wife of petitioner No. 1. Tamana Rani, petitioner No. 4 who is the daughter of petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, was married with Harbans Singh on 12.10.2002 and is residing at Burail in Chandigarh. Petitioner No. 3 is a married person having two daughters, namely Surjit Kaur and Mandeep Kaur and one son. He is having a separate card and is living separately from the remaining petitioners. It has been alleged in the petition that on the basis of the statement of Santosh Kumari (respondent No. 2) wife of Sukhwinder son of Sarwan Ram (petitioner No. 1), a case was registered against the petitioners under Sections 498-A/354 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code mentioning therein that she was married with Sukhwinder son of Sarwan Ram on 26.11.2000. Her husband met with an accident on 23.5.2001 and expired on 18.6.2001. On the following day, she was got remarried with Jagdish Singh (brother-in-law) through chaddar ceremony and thus, they started living as husband and wife. On the next date of marriage, her mother-in-law Mohinder Kaur, sister-in-law Tamana Rani started taunting her. After 10-15 days of the marriage, Jagdish Singh and Ajmer Singh sons of Sarwan Ram and her father-in- law Sarwan Ram started giving her beatings and asked her to bring colour T.V., scooter and cash. It has been further alleged in the petition that her brother-in-law Ajmer Singh tried to kill her as she did not agree to fulfil his bad intentions. She also complained about it to her husband Jagdish, but he did not take care of it. She has also alleged that the above named petitioners turned her out of their house and threatened her not to come back.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioners at the very outset has contended that the petition qua petitioners, namely, Ajmer Singh, Sarwan Ram, father-in-law and Mohinder Kaur, mother-in-law have already been rejected by this Court. Only the case of Tamana Rani, sister-in-law of the complainant and is now married with Harbans Singh at Burail in Chandigarh, is on different footing with that of the above named petitioners and on account of this, the petition qua Tamana Rani was admitted, as is apparent from the order dated 27.1.2004 passed by this Court. Learned counsel has further contended that from the bare reading of the FIR, it reveals that only some vague allegations have been levelled against Tamana Rani and no specific allegation has been made against her.